3/25/2009 @ 3:00PM

Promoting Good Works In Bad Times

Yes, the market has shown signs of life these past few days. Even so, widespread lack of confidence in marketers is not going to go away soon. People are gun shy. And given what I assume is a permanent change of mood, one of the questions being asked of brand professionals is whether companies can afford to be “good.”

That is, with all the corporate cost-cutting and downsizing, shouldn’t companies shelve initiatives relating to social responsibility until better times return? My professional opinion is–no. In fact, during this time of doubt and uncertainty, as consumers compare and contrast brands and carefully deliberate where to spend their dollars, they’re taking into consideration not simply value, as in “price-value,” but the ethical, humanitarian and environmental values of a company.

Doing good will be increasingly important for brands moving forward. It will help them differentiate beyond, or in addition to, product benefits. It will be what helps set them apart as people look to them for the solutions to the problems they were responsible for creating.

I’m not talking about frivolous or gratuitous gestures here. If you are going to incorporate a goodness dimension into your brand promise, like any aspect of branding, you need to do it right and you need to do it over time. To do so, you need to make sure it’s linked intrinsically to your business strategy. (And lest those at the top think they can talk the good-behavior talk without walking the walk, a quick click on videos of brands-gone-bad on YouTube will prompt them to think otherwise.) No, this is not the time to break down the wall between the business side and the brand side of the equation, but the time to shore it up.

I agree that in the past it was standard operating procedure that any do-good activities were a reflection of the CEO’s favorite philanthropic cause. Companies just can’t afford to do this anymore, and the best and brightest of them know this. For example, while the refreshing taste of
Coca-Cola
will always be at the heart of the brand experience, the folks at the company understand that consumers are making brand choices based on criteria that go beyond how their iconic product tastes.

Talking about the need to make social initiatives central to its business and to its long-term branding strategy,
Neville
Isdell
Neville Isdell
, chairman of the board of Coca-Cola, made this fact quite evident. “The key ingredient in Coca-Cola is water,” he said during a recent speaking engagement, “so that’s our No. 1 priority. With regard to reducing our footprint and extending our hand print, we are making clean water available to the communities we serve through partnerships” with organizations that include the World Wildlife Fund, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Gates Foundation.

Acknowledging in word and deed that the world has changed, Coca-Cola has made a strategic business decision to link what it makes to what it will be doing to make the world a better place. The very smart objective of this alignment of philanthropy and business is to help consumers differentiate the brand from all the others in the beverage aisles.

A literal and figurative smart move, too, is IBM‘s
linkage of its business model and do-good efforts as a way to differentiate its brand of technology. With its promise to “build a smarter planet,” IBM has launched a forward-thinking initiative that actively demonstrates its use of technology as the linchpin for solutions for everything from smart traffic, to smart food and health care, to smart energy and infrastructure. IBM’s goodness strategy and its business strategy are inextricably bound, not in a superficially altruistic way, but in a good-for-all way.

Among the first companies to see the benefits, planetary and otherwise, of aligning do-good strategy with business strategy as a way of setting itself apart in consumers’ minds is
General Electric
. Its “Ecomagination” efforts have cast a bright and proprietary halo over everything having to do with the company and its many brands. From innovative household appliances to alternative energy sources to safer, cleaner jet engines, there is no question that consumers see constructive and innovative environmental efforts as part and parcel of the GE brand.

While not quite as overt, similar actions are being taken by
Clorox
as a way to set its brand apart. In a session on sustainability and corporate responsibility, Katherine Hagan, marketing director of environmental sustainability for the company, made the point that “going green only works if there is a business case that can be made as well.” Most of Clorox’s packaging is made from recycled materials. This is not self-sacrifice. Prescient a brand that Clorox is, its green initiatives do not depend on altruism to get implemented, but on the bottom line and awareness of its customers’ needs.

No, this is definitely not the time to feed the CEO’s pet charities with business dollars. It is, however, the time to do good and to do a good job of linking business dollars and business strategy with world-changing initiatives. This can’t be seen as a short-term effort. And it can’t be gratuitous or self-congratulatory in any way, shape or form. If you are planning to incorporate goodness into your brand as a way to help consumers understand what makes your brand better and different, it has to be tied honestly and actively to your business. In bad times like these, the brand that can best weave “doing good” into its promise will be the brand most likely to best its competition.

Allen Adamson is managing director of the New York office of Landor Associates, a brand consultancy and design firm. He is also the author of BrandDigital and BrandSimple.